Abstract
Meta-analysts often ask a yes-or-no question: Is there an intervention effect or not? This traditional, all-or-nothing thinking stands in contrast with current best practice in meta-analysis, which calls for a heterogeneity-attuned approach (i.e., focused on the extent to which effects vary across procedures, participant groups, or contexts). This heterogeneity-attuned approach allows researchers to understand where effects are weaker or stronger and reveals mechanisms. The current article builds on a rare opportunity to compare two recent meta-analyses that examined the same literature (growth mindset interventions) but used different methods and reached different conclusions. One meta-analysis used a traditional approach (Macnamara and Burgoyne, in press), which aggregated effect sizes for each study before combining them and examined moderators one-by-one by splitting the data into small subgroups. The second meta-analysis (Burnette et al., in press) modeled the variation of effects within studies-across subgroups and outcomes-and applied modern, multi-level meta-regression methods. The former concluded that growth mindset effects are biased, but the latter yielded nuanced conclusions consistent with theoretical predictions. We explain why the practices followed by the latter meta-analysis were more in line with best practices for analyzing large and heterogeneous literatures. Further, an exploratory re-analysis of the data showed that applying the modern, heterogeneity-attuned methods from Burnette et al. (in press) to the dataset employed by Macnamara and Burgoyne (in press) confirmed Burnette et al.'s conclusions; namely, that there was a meaningful, significant effect of growth mindset in focal (at-risk) groups. This article concludes that heterogeneity-attuned meta-analysis is important both for advancing theory and for avoiding the boom-or-bust cycle that plagues too much of psychological science.